The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that forced unnatural sex by a husband amounts to cruelty under Section 498A IPC, but it cannot be treated as rape under Section 376 or unnatural offence under Section 377 IPC.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that forced unnatural sex by a husband against his wife constitutes cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), but it cannot be prosecuted as rape under Section 376 or as an unnatural offence under Section 377 IPC.
The court referenced the marital exception in Section 375 IPC and noted the repugnancy between Section 375 and Section 377 concerning acts between spouses.
As a result, the Court quashed the FIR and charge sheet against the husband for offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 377 IPC while upholding the charges for cruelty and other related offences.
The case involved a petitioner (husband) and respondent no. 2 (wife), who were married on June 26, 2022. Conflicts arose soon after the marriage, with claims of quarrels and violence.
The prosecution alleged that on March 1, 2023, during a visit to Indore, the husband assaulted the wife, particularly by smashed the head of the respondent no.2 on the wall after a disagreement.
Additionally, it was claimed that he used to forcefully make physical relation with respondent no.2 & has also against her will, committed unnatural acts on many occasions against her.
Following an incident on August 28, 2023, where the wife was allegedly abused and assaulted, she filed an FIR on October 1, 2023, at Police Station Kotwali, District Morena.
The FIR included charges under Sections 498A (Cruelty), 376(2)(n) (Repeated Rape), 377 (Unnatural Offences), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), and 294 (Obscene acts) of the IPC.
Earlier, On November 25, 2023, the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Morena, took cognizance of the offences.
The husband sought relief from the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to quash the charge sheet and the ongoing proceedings.
Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta explored the relationship between Section 375 (Rape) and Section 377 (Unnatural Offences) through the lens of marriage.
Regarding Marital Rape (Section 376 IPC), the Court cited Exception 2 of Section 375 IPC, which states that sexual intercourse by a man with his wife, provided she is not under 15 years of age (interpreted as 18 years according to judicial precedents), does not constitute rape. Referring to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Kuldeep Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors. (2025 INSC 130), the Court affirmed,
“Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, where the wife is a major and there is no force/coercion, falls within Exception 2 of Section 375 IPC; hence, a charge under Section 376 IPC cannot be sustained.”
On Unnatural Offences (Section 377 IPC), the Court investigated whether a husband could face prosecution under Section 377 for acts involving his wife. It identified a “repugnancy” between the revised definition of rape under Section 375 and the crime outlined in Section 377.
The Court reasoned,
“The offence between husband and wife is not made out under Section 375 as per the repeal made by way of amendment and there is repugnancy in the situation when everything is repealed under Section 375 then how offence under Section 377 would be attracted if it is committed between husband and wife.”
Additionally, the Court stated,
“But, this Court is also of the opinion that forced unnatural sex by a husband on his wife amounts to cruelty under Section 498A IPC, but cannot be prosecuted as rape under Section 376 IPC as in a Section 377 context (unnatural acts), the marital rape concept is not recognized under current law because of the Express marital exception in Section 375.”
Regarding Malicious Prosecution, The Court, referencing guidelines from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, observed that the trial for Section 377 was initiated only on the oral submissions without corroborating medical evidence.
It pointed out that the FIR seemed to be a matter of counterblast to divorce and that the medical report revealed no injury signs were visible or detected concerning unnatural sex.
The High Court granted partial relief to the petitioner. It quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings concerning the offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 377 IPC.
However, it upheld the action for offences under Sections 498A, 323, and 294 IPC, emphasizing that the prosecution had sufficiently established its case regarding these charges, which must be validated during trial.
Sections 498A, 323, and 294 IPC deal with different types of offences under the Indian Penal Code. Section 498A addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman, especially relating to harassment or dowry demands.
Section 323 punishes voluntarily causing hurt, covering physical assault that does not result in serious injuries.
Section 294 deals with obscene acts or abusive words in public places that cause annoyance to others. Together, these sections are commonly invoked in domestic violence or family dispute cases involving harassment, physical assault, and verbal abuse.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
